Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?
<snip>
Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?
<snip>
that would be the first voting option, for you then.
that's what we i have now - sorry to not communicate that effectively enough.
How is giving negative rep and then getting it fair? That kind of defeats the point of being able to give negative rep...no?
Why can't people actually read what is written by said person instead of relying on a number below their username?
Why isn't there an option to leave it the way it is?
The way I see it, narkotikon didn't like the negative rep he was getting, so he claimed people were "abusing the system" when he was the one actually abusing it by deleting his neg rep. I understand he apologized and it's not a big deal to me.
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether. The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me. If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about. Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative. I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive). That's my opinion and I'm not changing it. It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system. I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis.. Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.
No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system. A few others were too. I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused. By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points. Do you honestly think that's warranted? I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up. You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings. That's NOT what the karma system is for. Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level. By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with. It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts. Some people were abusing the system.
As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence. ::) I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin. I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to. He said there wouldn't be any obligations. Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad. I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation. I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip. I've not done any of those things. The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me. It had to do with me as a member, not an admin. Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board. I would have thought that was obvious. Apparently not.
As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances. I'm willing to put the past behind us. But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers.. If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes. In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election.
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether. The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me. If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about. Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative. I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive). That's my opinion and I'm not changing it. It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system. I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis.. Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.
No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system. A few others were too. I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused. By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points. Do you honestly think that's warranted? I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up. You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings. That's NOT what the karma system is for. Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level. By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with. It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts. Some people were abusing the system.
As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence. ::) I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin. I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to. He said there wouldn't be any obligations. Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad. I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation. I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip. I've not done any of those things. The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me. It had to do with me as a member, not an admin. Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board. I would have thought that was obvious. Apparently not.
As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances. I'm willing to put the past behind us. But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers.. If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes. In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election.
Can someone explain how its even possible for the rep to be "abused"? Apparently giving an admin more negative rep than they feel they deserve is "abuse"?
I agree with neighbor. Just do away with it, really not a big deal to me. But if this place is to be a democracy, that option needs to win in the poll.
I think we should either keep it positive only, or turn it off altogether. The way it is now, with just positive, is fine with me. If we have to go back to allowing negative, I think we should have the modification Chipper is talking about. Either the person giving negative rep looses a positive, or by giving a negative point they get a negative. I like the former (giving negative deletes a positive). That's my opinion and I'm not changing it. It incentivizes the person to not abuse the negative system. I'd also still like the option for people to turn off their rep system on a case-by-case basis.. Meaning they turn off their rep, while others can still enjoy theirs.
No, I wasn't the only one complaining of abuse of the karma system. A few others were too. I'm also not the only one who thinks it was being abused. By now, by my count, I'd have -25 Karma points. Do you honestly think that's warranted? I try to be helpful on here, post good posts, apologize when I fuck up. You can't convince me that some of those points weren't based on negative personal feelings. That's NOT what the karma system is for. Negative Karma is for disagreeing on a strong level. By strong level I mean something you adamantly disagree with. It's not meant for the casual disagreement, or ambivalence to posts. Some people were abusing the system.
As for me being an admin, thanks for the vote of confidence. ::) I'll say this again, I didn't ask to be an admin. I told Chipper I didn't want to be obligated to be here or do work when I didn't want to. He said there wouldn't be any obligations. Since I've been one though, I think I've done more good than bad. I think people who disagree are probably letting their personal feelings enter into the equation. I think some people thought I was going to automatically ban them, fuck with them, or be on some power trip. I've not done any of those things. The only thing I've reacted to was in the Opiophile Is Down thread, and that was b/c it was extremely personal to me. It had to do with me as a member, not an admin. Those feelings and opinions weren't meant to be some mandate for the entire board. I would have thought that was obvious. Apparently not.
As I said, I'm more than willing to give people second chances. I'm willing to put the past behind us. But what I'm not willing to do is constantly defend myself against naysayers.. If the majority of people honestly don't want me in power, they're certainly free to vote me out when the time comes. In all honesty I expected not to win anyway, even if I did stand for election.
Can someone explain how its even possible for the rep to be "abused"? Apparently giving an admin more negative rep than they feel they deserve is "abuse"?
I agree with neighbor. Just do away with it, really not a big deal to me. But if this place is to be a democracy, that option needs to win in the poll.
I already explained that. Please read again. Applies to me and a few other people.
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.
you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.
you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.
OK, good. I thought maybe "no support" meant no work was needed on the negative karma, as in it didn't need to be modified (i.e., the old system).
...............................
JDub, yeah, that is my interpretation. Do you think it fair that people should use the negative karma for personal negative feelings though? So you're basically saying if Member A doesn't like Member B, then Member A can smite Member B to hell. That's great. ::) Do you think that promotes a harmonious board? If anything, it causes anger and resentment. Especially since you can't see who's giving you the negative.
I'd like to think everyone on here is a decent person, who would choose to give negative rep the way I was suggesting it be used. Apparently that's not the case for some.
Edit: And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway? The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post. Do you think it right that Member A who had an argument with Member B a year ago, six months ago, 1 month ago, should give out negative rep for Member B's post simply b/c they're upset? What does that have to do with their post? Personal feelings should NOT be taken into account when giving negative rep. Some people were doing that. You just admitted that's how you interpreted the system. Don't you think that's abuse? And as I've said countless times now, it wasn't just me who thought the system was abused. There were ALSO a few others.
And as for mild / "not-so-strong" disagreements. Well, would you smite / punch someone out in your everyday life simply because you disagreed with them slightly? I'd hope not. Do you think it's okay to behave that way simply b/c this is online? Assholery is assholery, wherever it takes place.
jdub, whilst I inherently agree, the system was abused so it had to go ... high neg. counts can attack the psyche.
Nark, you DID vote for us to keep it they way it is right now with smite turned off.
you're good. don't worry. i know what you'd want.
OK, good. I thought maybe "no support" meant no work was needed on the negative karma, as in it didn't need to be modified (i.e., the old system).
...............................
JDub, yeah, that is my interpretation. Do you think it fair that people should use the negative karma for personal negative feelings though? So you're basically saying if Member A doesn't like Member B, then Member A can smite Member B to hell. That's great. ::) Do you think that promotes a harmonious board? If anything, it causes anger and resentment. Especially since you can't see who's giving you the negative.
I'd like to think everyone on here is a decent person, who would choose to give negative rep the way I was suggesting it be used. Apparently that's not the case for some.
Edit: And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway? The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post. Do you think it right that Member A who had an argument with Member B a year ago, six months ago, 1 month ago, should give out negative rep for Member B's post simply b/c they're upset? What does that have to do with their post? Personal feelings should NOT be taken into account when giving negative rep. Some people were doing that. You just admitted that's how you interpreted the system. Don't you think that's abuse? And as I've said countless times now, it wasn't just me who thought the system was abused. There were ALSO a few others.
And as for mild / "not-so-strong" disagreements. Well, would you smite / punch someone out in your everyday life simply because you disagreed with them slightly? I'd hope not. Do you think it's okay to behave that way simply b/c this is online? Assholery is assholery, wherever it takes place.
I think its fair for people to use it for whatever they feel like. If there were negative repercussions beyond a small number under your avatar Imighthave a different opinion. If someone feels like "smiting someone to hell" then go for it. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things, or even on this board?
Do I think it promotes a harmonious board? There is an argument to be made that it allows people to vent without confrontation and thereby serves as a release valve. I don't think it detracts from a harmonious board either. Especially with the anonymity. If some anonymous person is pushing a button under your avatar, how does that promote discord? Who would you be angry or resentful towards? Do you think the neg karma on reddit is causing discord over there?
"And what do personal feelings have to do with negative rep anyway?" Apparently a lot, if you think people are using it that way.
"The negative rep you're giving is for that particular post." Once again, your interpretation. Maybe some people want to use it in a more general sense. I don't think that's "abuse". I think member B should be able to click the neg rep for whatever reason he wants. I'm not a big fan of limiting people's options/ actions/ freedom. Just in a general philosophical sense.
Why shouldn't personal feelings be taken into account when giving neg rep? I 100% don't think giving neg rep based on personal feelings is abuse of the system. I guess that's why we fundamentally disagree on this issue, but I'm not insinuating that my opinion is anything more than that. You keep stating what people should NOT do like its some sort of fact or rule written on the ancient tablets of drug board karma.
I don't think you're lying when you say you're not the only one that felt this way. I disagree with those people too. Just because other people have the same opinion you do doesn't make you right.
I don't think that pushing the negative rep button equates with physically assaulting someone IRL. Do you really think the two things are even remotely similar? Is it really that serious to you?
yeah Nark., I'd called you delicate...
Yes, I'd like this debate to die. I don't especially like debating in the first place. It's a form of polite bitching IMO. I also don't like having to defend my views. It is what it is.Expressing your views while considering the views of another without getting butt hurt is debating. Polite bitching is something else. You must be very passionate about the stance you take. Which is a good thing. But proper debates can grow both sides in terms of understanding and acceptance.
I don't know if you were speaking in a general sense, or if you meant me, when you said people have to act in a way that engenders kindness. But I've always felt like I have behaved in a way that is kind. Any "snarkieness" on Opiophile was either meant as a joke, or in instances where I was defending myself. I'd like to think most people don't view me as an asshole. I assure you that's not how I intend to be. If some do think of me that way, I'm not sure there's anything I could even do to change their opinion.
As for Fear's info. The only thing I did was to talk about his affair. I didn't even want to list names. He's the one who started naming names. I originally referred to the other two as male member and female member. I also don't think I did anything "bad" because it was already well known. I was even told he made a thread shortly after my banning about his relationship with his "friend," as he put it. I'm sure most people could read that for what it was. I know a few did. I'm also not the one who listed his first name. Dizzle called him by his first name. I don't consider my actions as "outing him." Sorry you disagree.
I'm not trying to be a dick, dont really care about this issue, but I thought this place was billed as a democracy. The winning option wasn't the on that one was implemented. Just saying.
So there was never an option to keep negative rep?
the poll indicates a preference to run with positive rep. (applaud) only.
makes my job easy since i removed the smite option with a single line line of php code removed.
i saved a backup of the original php file should we revisit this someday.
I think the whole poll was a bit of a clusterfuck in terms of wording and options. Oh well, chalk it up to growing pains.
I think the whole poll was a bit of a clusterfuck in terms of wording and options. Oh well, chalk it up to growing pains.
Rep is pretty much worthless if admins are adding and subtracting on a whim and a feeling. Might as well just get rid of it entirely at this point.
no mods or admins are messing with rep.
Nark is right - we continue with the system as it is now.
we are all equals when it comes to the rep. system and our earlier neg. rep has been carried forward.
have faith.
no mods or admins are messing with rep.
Nark is right - we continue with the system as it is now.
we are all equals when it comes to the rep. system and our earlier neg. rep has been carried forward.
have faith.
Fair enough. You might notice that some members still have entirely negative rep.
I just noticed nark jump from 0 to 6 or whatever as soon as you made the change and figured he had done it again.
I liked not having every click shown, and seeing where it came from as well. I don't know what is possible in smf.